Impact of Soil Biodisinfection Techniques in Horticultural Crops on Profitability within the Framework of the Circular Economy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author submitted a manuscript that is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.

The objective of the manuscript is to provide original insight to identify the multifunctionality and cost-effectiveness in the use of the biodisinfection technique in greenhouse horticultural crops.

The subject area is rather interesting, and, possibly, not enough approached by other scholars, so there is potential room for this manuscript to bring new information, once it reaches the expected level of quality.  

The Abstract looks conclusive to me, it is clear and concise.

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. Entering different words in the title and in the keywords can improve the search for the paper in metasearch engines and internet databases. 

In the introduction, the objective of the study is pointed out, enough explained, and defined in boarder terms. The part of the Literature Review is included in the Introduction part and it seems to be well constructed so the scientific gap is clear. I suggest including, at the end of this part, an explanation of the structure of the remainder of the manuscript.

The methodology part is including three sub-parts. My recommendations are

-        For 2.1. General technical characteristics of greenhouse agriculture in Almeria, I recommend being more precise how the analyze was done (desk research, field visits etc.,)

-        For 2.2. Systematic literature review, I recommend offering details on what kind of literature was consulted (what language, what databases, which criteria were used for selection, when was carried on etc.)

-        Offer details on how the 3 methods were combined and why?

Lines 153. “1 Tables may have a footer” seems to be eliminated or changed

The Results. recommend being clearer about which are “results” and which are “methodological issues”. For instance, in part 3.1. is just a theoretical appraisal of terms. And not only 3.1. The authors are asked to clarify that, so the results part includes only the results. Anyway, the most challenging issues, that must be necessarily clarified are how the data were obtained and how comparative they are to each other (for instance in Table 6 the data included are just obtained from other research and it is not clear if they were obtained in the same conditions, so they can be analyses together). Otherwise, the discussions and the results are futile.

The conclusion. Limits of the research must be mentioned.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

Thank you for inviting me to review a MS entitled Impact of soil biodisinfection techniques in horticultural crops on profitability within the framework of the circular economy. The study is interesting in terms of reducing the cost of agriculture system. However, I have found there are some shortcomings in the methods section and about the interpretation of the results. I would suggest the authors to write clearly whether this is the review of literature, or the experiment performed. The manuscript fails to give a clear idea of the paper. Here are a few specific comments and suggestions.   

Methods section: It is not clear that the study did any impact analysis or just reviewed the existing literature. If review this does not make a sense.

Results and discussion section

3.1 Biodesinfection techniques: This paragraph looks like a floating one, I would suggest to shift this to methods section. At least the author could explain about the use of this section in agriculture system on the basis of published literature. From when this technique came into practice and its effectiveness in agriculture system.

3.1.1 Soil Solarization: Is this the result of the study? I think it is suitable for introduction section.

 Line 198-207 the author is explaining the methods (must rewrite it)

3.1.2: How come description of biodisinfection in result and discussion? should reorganize…

 

Line 245 251 this is totally a description of the process nothing to do with results of the experiment.

 

Conclusion: Line 472-473 is this concluded by the results? I did not get it…

 

Figure 1 smaller than figure caption difficult to read (I would suggest making bigger figure and use the legends properly, long caption difficult to follow

 

Table 5 is only the review of literature; it is just a review (the author could adjust somewhere in introduction)

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Impact of soil biodisinfection techniques in horticultural crops on profitability within the framework of the circular economy" can be accepted after addressing the following comments,

1. In Fig. 1 and 2. the description of the bars should be below, not in the legend box. Moreover, the caption of Fig 1 should be shortened with numbers present on the graphs.

2. The fertilizers should also be described with regard to the nano-fertilizer which is a novel method in agriculture. Please refer to: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9374-8_8. 

3. Table 6. is not readable. Please summarize the main findings in the percent increase/decrease and describe the A, B, and C.

4. The data presented in Tab 4 require additional columns describing the effect of the organic amendments (productivity increase) and tested plants. 

5. The data in Tab 5 need further elaboration on crop productivity, preferably in percent increase of the growth. Currently, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the effect of various techniques.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors succeded in answering my concern. In my opinion, the manuscript can be published as it is.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think all the comments raised by me are somehow addressed by the authors, and the paper can be published now.